But I am a christian
She was heavily pregnant, wore little make up and wore a small silver cross at her neck. We were discussing options for the recovery of a substanial amount of money which she had loaned. As I am accustomed to do, I laid out the different steps that could be taken, the costs and risks involved. But when I came to discuss bankruptcy, she said “I could never bankrupt someone because I am a Christian”. I wondered whether I was in the wrong profession.
But this was just another example of issues of financial management becoming tied up in religion for no good reason. And I see it a lot in my line of work. I could have spoken to her and pointed out that bankruptcy is actually designed as a form of restorative justice - a process which balances the rights of those that are owed money while giving the debtor a chance of a fresh start. It developed as a replacement for the system where hopelessly indebted people would enter into a spiral of prosecution which ended with their being imprisoned until their debts were paid in full. Due to the fact that they were imprisoned, they were unable to earn money to pay these debts and therefore the effective result of financial difficulties was life imprisonment. I could have explained all of this to my client, but I doubt she would have appreciated it.
We all know that religion has a messed up relationship with money in all its forms. Prosperity theology, dodgy teaching on giving, lack of accountability - we have talked about all of these on this site. This week I received an alert to an article about Christian financial counsellors - the debt slayers. We come across these people from time to time. There are the real Christian debt counsellors - the priests and ministers and church leaders who deal straight with us lawyers and counsel their “clients” to be honest and open about your abilities to pay and cooperate to arrange the resolution of the situation (in whatever way) with a minimum of evasion, costs and manipulation. But those saints never advertise or present themselves as financial counsellors. And they are not the focus of this article. Rather, this article is about the ‘other’ kind of Christian financial counsellors:
Dave Ramsey is a fast-talking, in-your-face kind of guy whose tough-love guidance—both in books and over the airwaves from Nashville—connects with a lot of Americans. Every few minutes on his three-hour weekday afternoon radio program, callers who recently paid off massive amounts of credit card obligations scream, “I’m debt-free!”
Although he is overtly Christian, Ramsey resonates with a market beyond the evangelical niche: His show is carried on 272 secular stations. In March, cbs television began filming a pilot for a reality series that will follow Ramsey around the country, helping families conquer overwhelming debt and cut the credit umbilical cord.
“I’ve cried over this stuff, too,” says Ramsey, who established a $4 million real estate portfolio by age 26 and lost it four years later. “I’ve done stupid with zeroes on the end.”
I don’t want to impugn Mr Ramsey’s ministry, but I just don’t see the difference between this and any other financial counselling service. Just what are the Christian principles in relation to debt? I would venture that we are called to be good stewards of our resources (which would mean avoiding waste, consumerism, excessive spending etc). We are called to give sacrificially to others. And we are called to deal honestly with other people (ie that there is a moral aspect to clearing debt and not leaving people in the lurch). But except where you want to justify your tips with a bible verse, I can’t see how the nuts and bolts of Christian financial counselling is any better than the more principled of secular financial counsellors.
So I don’t really think you are getting anything extra from Christian financial counselling than you are from secular financial counselling, except the warm glow that comes from being told that becoming debt free is pleasing to God (in itself a little creepy). But putting such a religious overtone on paying off credit card debt can be profoundly manipulative:
According to Mary Hunt, who says her Debt-Proof Living website attracts more than 8 million monthly hits, multitudes of Christians have curtailed church giving because of overspending.
“People can’t believe it when I tell them they need to tithe and save even if they are deeply in debt,” says Hunt. “Most of them think, I’ll do that when I pay all my bills off.“
“A whole bunch of us got all this stuff we really didn’t want with money we really didn’t have to impress people we really didn’t like,” Ramsey says.
And all of it is built around that old chestnut, that God likes us better if we are not in debt. Or, even if we are wealthy. And correspondingly, if we are in financial trouble, then we are not living as God wants us to live. But in order to find this in the Bible, you have to really want to see it:
Most Christian financial leaders acknowledge that debt isn’t called sin in the Bible, but they believe that Scripture discourages debt. They concede that debt is a reality of modern life and even drives the economy, but warn against a lifelong pattern of debt.
“We can’t make a blanket statement that all debt is wrong,” says Blue, author of Master Your Money, now in its 32nd printing. “But it doesn’t make sense to borrow your way to prosperity.”
And it should be no surprise that the ‘typical’ success stories from such counsellors follow the “I paid off my debt and God blessed me with money and success” formula:
Doug and Sherrie Spracklen of Fair Grove, Missouri, are typical beneficiaries. They believe an intensive 13-week Crown Ministries course at Peace Chapel Assembly of God strengthened their marriage and transformed their lives.
Doug, 35, says in his younger years he bought things like a car stereo system and golf clubs, but didn’t have the money to pay for them. His credit card balance further escalated when he started his own insurance business and bought office furnishings and business suits.
Four years into their marriage, the Spracklens had amassed $20,000 in unsecured debt. They had two vehicle payments, an older house that needed repairs, and no equity. They made minimum payments on their credit cards and rolled debt over whenever a zero percent credit offer came along, but those introductory benefits soon expired. The Crown classes helped them devise a plan to get out of debt in two years, just before the birth of the first of their two sons.
Although he always had tithed, the Crown course taught Doug Spracklen to view giving as something more joyful than a mere obligation. Since becoming debt-free, the Spracklens have increased giving to missions, benevolence needs, and savings. He hired three agents, and his business income quadrupled in six years. The Spracklens have purchased 30 acres, but are in no hurry to go into debt by borrowing to build a home.
Want a real Christian attitude to debt and stewardship? Then you are better off going to this guy:
On the other end of the spectrum is the Sarasota, Florida–based Gary Moore, who provides “counsel to spiritual and ethical investors.” He advises the Templeton Foundation and is a board treasurer of Opportunity International, an organization that sees loans as a means of empowerment for the poor. “Small loans,” its website proclaims, “sometimes as little as $50, in the hands of a poor entrepreneur, can transform the lives of individuals, families, and entire communities.” Not surprisingly, then, Moore paints a much different picture than Dayton, Ramsey, Blue, and Hunt.
He argues that Americans are in the top 1 percent of all wage earners in history and that less than 2 percent of Americans have serious credit card debt. Federal Reserve reports indicate that of the households that carry a credit card balance (45 percent of all households), the median amount owed is $1,900. “As the average American lives on $40,000 a year, that’s hardly an economic earthquake,” Moore comments. Only 29 percent of households owe $1,000 or more on their cards, 4 percent owe $10,500 or more, and 1 percent owe $21,400 or more. Moore contends that debt can be empowering rather than enslaving, and that credit is compatible with Christian values.
Or better still, how about we listen to this guy:
Then he said to the crowd, “Don’t be greedy! Owning a lot of things won’t make your life safe.”
16So Jesus told them this story:
A rich man’s farm produced a big crop, 17and he said to himself, “What can I do? I don’t have a place large enough to store everything.”
18Later, he said, “Now I know what I’ll do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I can store all my grain and other goods. 19Then I’ll say to myself, `You have stored up enough good things to last for years to come. Live it up! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.’ ”
20But God said to him, “You fool! Tonight you will die. Then who will get what you have stored up?”
21″This is what happens to people who store up everything for themselves, but are poor in the sight of God.”
Who here really thinks that Jesus would be mad if I borrowed money to give it to the poor?

May 29th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Geoff re 55…..
….sounding very Catholic there to me mate….what can we offer you to get you across the Tiber?
May 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
DaffyDuck - you seem to have taken on a very aggressive and argumentative attitude (from my reading of your most recent posts) which is not like your earlier posts. Is everything ok with you?
May 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Duck/Kieren/DaveHarris, your mode of participation is returning to its lowest level. Be civil or take a break.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
How naughty!
May 29th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Dan,
you are joking.
DD maybe maddening in his approach but I have yet to see him abuse the clappers out of someone like Lance does.
Get real or stop being a complete hypocrite when it comes to civility
May 29th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
EP, I believe Dan has a personal grudge against me. She has been influenced by Phil in this regard.
Like you, I once naively thought that people involved in serving God in the capacity of church leadership would have learnt highly polished people-skills.
I guess that’s why Brian Houston/Phil Baker/Phil Pringle etc are earning the big bucks and Phil and Dan are not.
May 29th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Bye bye, DD.
May 29th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Is that the last of Donald Fuck, and good riddance too. Little shits like that deserve an early death.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:58 am
I have to say that I find it puzzling that Donald Duck/ Keiren Green, from time to time gets officially cautioned for his behaviour on this blog. It really does seem inconsistent, in any other case, it seems anything goes. If you want to call someone a c*nt, then that is fine, if you want to say horribly offensive stuff to homosexuals, then that is fine, so why does DD gets told to cool it?
Obviously Phil, Dan and Dave Duck, have some kind of history, and I have no idea what has gone on between them, but I do enjoy DD’s input on this blog. I hope that this is not the end for the Duck.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Donald Fuck must be the biggest cunt on this site. Please ban the fuckwit. Hey Doodle Duck, go deck yourself, you worthless turd.
May 30th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Donald Duck,
Perhaps a bit of analogy here. A grain of sand in itself is insignificant however, when it finds its way into an oyster, it irritates the crap out of it and finally produces something beautiful-a pearl.
Perhaps your occasionally irritating behaviour enrichens the discussions of this website (and probably others) to produce something worthwhile.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Nilmot,
I hear your confusion. The difference is simply that DD behavior towards Dan and I is personally motivated and he is someone known in real life. I suggest that if you enjoy interacting with DD then the conversation can be carried out on your blog.
Suicidal thats enough.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:15 am
FYI Nilmot and others … suicidal is DD as well.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:29 am
It is hypocrisy at its best to ban DD.
Nothing happened on the thread where Ned, Lance taby etal used language that was not how shall we say it uncivil.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:51 am
If Donald engages himself in debate under multiple identities, he is a sick puppy.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Ultimately this is our site. We pay for it and we maintain it. We only do that because we enjoy it. A purely selfish motivation. If someone or something is meaning that we don’t enjoy this endeavour then we will choose to either shut the site down or take other action to ensure that we continue to enjoy it. This is what we have done.
You might argue that decisions made in the administration of this site are hypocritical, unreasonable or shortsighted. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion will not necessarily make any difference to our decisions. This decision will not be discussed further on the blog. If you wish to discuss it further you can do so by emailing me.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am
heh heh…yeah but Dan you could say that about a church too…
May 30th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Man, if we got to have the final say in a church in the same way that we do on this blog, that would be ace. I know that some churches probably do operate like that but I must say I have never been a part of one of them.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I have no problem with that Dan however the decision was very hypocritical and does show people on this site have double standards.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I am a bit stunned.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I think you may have missed the point. DD is known to P&D outside this site. That creates an entirely diffent tension. He has obvious issues with Phil and Dan that are deeper than what we see in DD’s posts. We are all guests. When one of us keep kicking the host ‘under the table’ I think it is quite reasonable to say “enough is enough”. I do not agree with the multiple names. Phil and Dan do not cloak themselves with anoniminity… spell check pls… DD’s last post as suicidal was a deliberate and nasty attempt to draw us all into side taking.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:30 am
All I want is consistency and it isn’t here.
Before he was told to go I didn’t see DD use bad language.
He was annoying.
I fail to see how one can ban him and yet let others use bad language all the time.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Homer, let it go. I’m all for open debate, but there is also the fact that Geoff has pointed out - this is Dan and Phil’s site and they can do what they want. If you don’t like it, start your own blog.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:40 am
well you never have been a great supporter of banning bad language.
yes this is their site and they are saying we have double standards here.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:41 am
anyone else you feel like laying into, Homer?
May 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Very few people other than me have said boo about the bad language that has promulgated here.
nothing has been done and we even have got to the absurd levels of thinking up excuses of why it is justified sorry understandable.
Before being banned I didn’t notice any bad language from DD although I wasn’t a great reader of his.
If the reason for banning is the lack of civility then most writers to this blog would be banned however that obviously wasn’t the reason.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Yeah - I agree with Homer. i don’t come into this as frequently because the things and the attitude of certain people is allowed to be personal and quite mean spirited. Who needs that? - Some people are too sensitive I agree, but the standard is not about debate on this, Bec, it is abuot agenda and the promotion of those agenda’s. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is ALL about debate. even grammar schoool debates do not allow you to cross the line of personal attack, this site does allow it, and frankly I am a little disapointed that there is not more limitations on it.
How bout it Dan and Phil - why not consider civility limitations - Do you really want the free world to think that this is what Australian emerging Christianity is all about?
May 30th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Probably a lot of people don’t object to swearing on the forum - I don’t object but its not something I would do on a forum although I have been known to swear in real life .
I think Dan and Phil have to be the people to make that call .
May 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
So…it comes to this…civility limitations…Dan and Phil say right from the beginning that they understand that we are all big boys and girls and non-gender specific persons of dubious anatomical specificity! They also say that this is their blog, and although we treat it as our own and D & Ph allow us that amount of fun, we need to keep in mind it is their blog - not ours.
This is not a church where we are all members - this is Dan adn Phils home and we are guests. If we want to stay and visit for a while we need to respect their wishes - I don’t agree with banning Daffy - but I don’t know the full story. Despite not agreeing with the banning - I fully support Dan and Phil in doing what they fell necessary (that’s becuse I am a very insecure person and I crave their love and respect and can only be assured of recieving such if I agree with all they say and do - which fortunaltey I do!
May 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
from all dan and phil put up with on here, it’s obvious that there must be a hell of a lot of history with DD. let’s respect their grace for not sharing it publicly. let’s respect their very generous hospitality (can you think of any other website that would let us have these conversations?), and let’s just get over it.